Pages

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

In the UK's Guardian an article has appeared called "Toppling Statues: Nelson's Column should be next", which seeks to set aside Nelson's brilliant achievements as an Admiral to defend Britain from invasion by Napoleon, and instead to embroil his memory in the current iconoclastic movement in the USA that seeks the removal of all historical figures who can be implicated in any way with slavery.

The argument goes that since Nelson was an obstacle to the abolition of slavery, this should be the sole criterion by which to judge his historical contribution. Nevermind that he fought bravely against another form of slavery, that of conquest by a foreign power.

Will this rule be applied to all those who owned, endorsed, or profited from slavery?

If so, there is one person in particular who should come under scrutiny. He owned slaves and advocated slavery. He encouraged his followers to make slaves of others and explicitly endorsed the sexual enslavement of women (“those whom your right hands possess”).

This person forbade images of himself to be created so there are no monuments erected in his image. However, there are monuments in his name springing up all over the world; monuments to a religion of slavery in which “Abdullah” (slave of Allah) is a common name. These monuments are called mosques.

Will the wrecking balls be visiting these monuments? I don't think so. Double standards in favour Islam are the contemporary hypocrisy.

Unlike the West, the Muslim world has yet to offer an apology for slavery. The institution is ingrained in the Qur'an. To admit that it is a mistake would be to admit the fallibility of the Qur'an and bring its divine origin into question. Even today, Muslims act as if Islamic slavery was a favor done to the millions of unfortunate men, women and children who were forcibly uprooted from their native lands and sent to lives of sexual and menial servitude deep in the Islamic world.

Ironically, the British Navy, where Nelson was such a significant figure, did an enormous amount to rid the world of slavery.

Saturday, 19 August 2017

Islam demands the complete colonization of the mind of the believer just as it demands the complete colonization of the world.

Muslims have developed the most logical theology they can from the scriptural sources of Islam and it is a theology of conquest and violence.

Many people fall into the trap of thinking that being opposed to Islam means that we are opposed to 1.5 billion Muslims. This has the effect of making the problem appear too enormous. They then try to pretend that there is a subset of Muslims that we should oppose - the radicals, the Salafists, the fundamentalists, the Wahhabists, the Deobandis, etc.

This conveys the message that Islam itself is undefeatable and should not even be taken on. But it is actually Islam itself that we should be trying to defeat. The whole thing is based on a very shaky claim to divine guidance and it is fundamentally immoral and unspiritual.

We won't defeat it on the level of its manifestations; it is a Hydra-headed monster that grows two heads for every one that is hacked off. Like Hercules in the legend we can only kill it slicing off and cauterizing its immortal head and then crushing the whole thing under a huge boulder. In the case of Islam that rock is the truth, the immortal head is Muhammad.

It is in the nature of Islam to colonize new areas then ethnically cleanse those areas until nothing but Islam remains. Likewise, it is the nature of certain plants to colonize new areas until nothing but that plant is left. In the latter case there are ecological counter-forces at work. Against Islam there is nothing but the truth that will prevail.

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali said, "Islam should be crushed." It is a mass delusion. Muslims would be well rid of it, just like the rest of us.

Islam is entirely of the ego. It subverts spiritual aspiration and bends it to the service of the ego; the persistent ego of Muhammad encoded in the scriptures; the collective ego of the Ummah in its claims of superiority and sheer numbers.

The ego is well-served by the dreams of conquest; the tribal loyalty; the persecution of non-Muslims; the projection of worldly appetites into a carnal afterlife.

There is one thing that will put an end to this, one boulder that will finally slay this Hydra-headed monster; and that is non-ego; an awakening of true spirituality that will shine a light too painful for the monster to bear upon its sham and hollow pretenses.

I phoned an old friend yesterday evening to catch up after a long gap in communication. The friend in question is a Quaker of 81 years of age. In my youth, this friend helped me immensely to regain a foothold on the ladder of life and for that I am eternally grateful. The virtue of not giving up on anyone is very well exemplified in this person.

The conversation we had on the phone covered a lot of ground and it reminded me of how ingrained certain attitudes are in a broad spectrum of western society; that which can be loosely defined as liberal/left/Christian.

I asked her opinion on the underlying motivation behind the Barcelona ramming attack and received the standard liberal response, the response that omits all mention of Islamic doctrine and belief.

As I pressed her on the subject it became apparent that any acknowledgement that there might be aspects of Islam that should be criticized was impossible. It was impossible because there was a fundamental unwillingness to criticize a culture other than western civilization. “It’s none of our business” was the first objection to any such criticism.

I countered that because Islamic doctrine has certain very negative ideas about the position on non-Muslims it is actually very much “our business” to scrutinize Islamic beliefs. To no avail, any criticism of Islam (or any other culture) was seen as an egoistic assertion of cultural supremacy.

Quakers claim to be people of peace but they don't have peace in their hearts because their hearts are full of politics.

You are no doubt very familiar with this response pattern.

My friend trotted out the usual tropes about the effects of colonization, the exploitation of weaker peoples, she could not bring herself to acknowledge any merit of western civilization that made it better than another. Every assertion in favour of western civilization was countered with a “we also” argument about some wrong committed by us in the past. Is this the constant acknowledgement of sin that Pauline and Augustine Christianity has inculcated? It has become a very ingrained mental habit.

I asked if a culture that stones women for adultery is worse than one that doesn’t. Of course, the reiteration of the Old Testament was made. I said that the problem with Islam is that stoning for adultery was endorsed by Muhammad which is why it is part of Shariah. Her response was, “Well, bugger Muhammad.” I should have pointed out that such a statement would be a death sentence in the Muslim world – a world which now extends into our inner cities and suburbs.

The tu quoque in the form of “we also” came up over and over again. Taking any pride in one’s own culture is very taboo. It’s as if the fundamental resistance to doing this, even in an objective manner, continually throws up logical fallacies to prevent the person crossing the line into any sense of cultural supremacy, what they feel is a collective egoism.

I can see a certain healthy wariness of the egoic mind in this manoeuvre. However, it lends itself very readily to distortions of reality in favour of people and cultures that do not warrant it. These distortions are buttressed by many arguments in the form of logical fallacies such as appeal to authority; appeal to consensus; and the ubiquitous tu quoque in the form of “we also”.

Yes, attitudes of cultural supremacy can be very dangerous but so can failing to see those attitudes in the people of another culture. Islam is loaded with cultural supremacy of a most virulent and unwarranted nature.

In addition, she constantly introduced the issue of race even though the conversation had nothing to do with race. It seems that people on the left are very prone to "racialize" a subject. This suggests that the category of race figures very prominently in their intellectual architecture. Perhaps this explains why they are constantly accusing others of racism?

My friend’s wariness of the egoic mind is justified. However, her wariness of the egoic tendencies in others in the form of jingoism and collective boasting is unaware of the form the egoic mind is taking in that very wariness. For it sees and feels itself superior to those egoic minds it objects to. For example, their egoic consciousness is very evident in their dehumanization of President Trump.

Finally, as with so many such people her mind is filled with unquestioned assumptions. Assumptions make fools of us all.

For further insight into the nature of the egoic self and the non-egoic self I highly recommend this (and many other videos) by Eckhart Tolle

Monday, 3 July 2017

I was reading Denis MacEoin's excellent essay at Gatestone today and on seeing the number of Nobel Prizes won by Jews compared to Muslims I thought it would be interesting to see what the numbers looked like in visual form. Here is the answer:

LOL. Islam is a ruinous belief system and it will ruin us if we let it.